I have a 1.4 with my 5d2. Good for low light.Is this good to copy flat art, say paintings in sizes upto 6x5 ft. Copying for fine art reprinting or buy a f2.5 macro or exchange the 1.4?

I am well aware of most ideal gadgets like Better Light scanning back and other 4x5 film system etc, but not practical; film is just dead, NOBODY to develop film locally, hence the FF camera and a suitable lens+ good even lighting+software like DxO for corrections is the practical alternative.

Which lens, and ideal lights please...Distance is no probs.

It is going to be a permanent, regular system to produce quality, any other system except film at moderate additional investment, say $2000+ if gives fundamental quality improvement is possible.

The most important factor will be lighting the works correctly so that you have no reflections and accurate representation of the colours. Once you have mastered this, you will need to work out the maximum size of the works you will be copying -you say 6ft x5ft so a 50-60mm macro lens would be suitable. You also need to work out if you are going to be outputting at lifesize or larger/smaller.

The need for a macro is less about close up focusing ability and more about trying to get a distortion free capture -software won't be the perfect solution here. If it was me I would look at the Zeiss 50mm macro or the Leica 60mm 2.8 with a Leitax adapter. A Leica 100mm Macro may also do the job.

If the reproductions are to be lifesize however you will need to switch from the 5d mk2 though to either a medium format back on a 5x4 camera, a Betterlight scanning back, or with perfect technique you may get away with something like a d800. Add in a set of decent lights that can be positioned quite far from the artwork (so 750W + minimum) and light modifiers and your $2000 budget will vanish very quickly.

Lighting: I understand the important of even light and making reflection less is tough job. But I have lot of old timer studio veterans available to help. (We all know most of old-time photo studios are outdated and they jobless now...)

Size: My need is extreme, life size. May be couple of inches less for reduction-finish. I know all will suggest 5x4 or Scanning Backs. There are NO Labs doing color developing now, that is CLOSED.

Betterlight/similar: I studied quite a lot of these. At least initially I have to be content with a best DSLR system: not only price but feasibility evaluation too. If such quality WILL sure bring more business alone the $$$$s worth. I couldn't see anything near my budget, even stretched.

Will a 22 MP 'Phase One P25 Hasselblad Mount" is enough?

I dont mind spending on any BEST lens + 5D2, which may even otherwise useful for me.

As in 5 x 6 feet? That will depend on your printing resolution but more pixels is better and currently the best of all will be an 80MP Phase One IQ280 back on a view camera that has rear movements so you can move the position of the back between frames and assemble the tiles afterward in a stitching pprogram (PTGui or Photomerge in Photoshop CC are excellent choices.) Four frames should do it

but that is well over your budget of $2,000.00back on earth tiling the frames shot with your 5D Mark Ii will work well. If you can live without autofocus, the Zeiss 50 nad 100mm Makros are excellent and each is less than Us $2K.

If you seriously want to start a fine art reproduction service, you'd best forget about doing it on a $3K budget. You are asking for nothing but grief. If you insist on going ahead with this and spending less than $3K, go with a shiny new Nikon d600 and a shiny new Nikon 60mm AFS G micro lens. Fred Miranda rates the Nikon 60mm a perfect "10" (better than the Zeiss). Sell off the Canon 5DII. The Nikon has much better dynamic range and I think it has 14 bit pixels. If you're lucky, your clients will not have high expectations. I recommend buying new equipment for the warranties and for resale value.

Color management is another matter. I hope you are planning on using something more sophisticated than an Acer monitor and a color munki. And, do consider the amount of computational horsepower required to tile six captures and tweak the final composite in PS. You will want to work with 16-bit files.

Collect your fee up front, or at least get a 50% deposit. That way you'll at least be minimally compensated should the client not want to pay for services rendered.

Final bit of advice, don't move the camera if you plan on stitching. Move the artwork instead.

I rarely get impatient or impassioned over LL threads, but this one takes the cake.

I don't get impassioned either, but invoking Fred Miranda as a reason for selling you're 5d2 is less than credible. (search the discussion of Fred Miranda on this board - or if you have time to waste you can go to his blog)

although the 50 f1.4 has good resolution stopped down, it is not a flat field lens and not a good choice for reproduction. although the Zeiss are probably the best, just about any macro lens stopped down to f5.6-f8 should work. if life size is 20x30 or less, the 5d2 is probably okay, anything bigger will certainly require stitching -- for flat copy work moving the art (or camera vertically and horizontally) is certainly the way to go.

hopefully your lighting friends are familiar with cross-polarization (if not, you can again search this board)

The Nikon has much better dynamic range and I think it has 14 bit pixels.

I am sorry - what is the DR of that "fine art" scene that you reproduce under a controlled light that you need DR of Sony sensor in Nikon ? and then speaking about color - isn't Sony A900/A850 better CFA-wise ?

I would think the Canon 5d2 would be just fine for repro; The 50 mm lens would be just passable to get started a better choice would be an 85mm or 100mm with better flat field performance one of the best flat field lenses ever made was the old carl zeiss planar T 100mm cf or cfi in hasselblad mount (use an adapter to eos mount). As stated by an earlier poster your biggest issue will be even lighting(consistent color and amount).

I don't get impassioned either, but invoking Fred Miranda as a reason for selling you're 5d2 is less than credible. (search the discussion of Fred Miranda on this board - or if you have time to waste you can go to his blog)

although the 50 f1.4 has good resolution stopped down, it is not a flat field lens and not a good choice for reproduction. although the Zeiss are probably the best, just about any macro lens stopped down to f5.6-f8 should work. if life size is 20x30 or less, the 5d2 is probably okay, anything bigger will certainly require stitching -- for flat copy work moving the art (or camera vertically and horizontally) is certainly the way to go.

hopefully your lighting friends are familiar with cross-polarization (if not, you can again search this board)

It took 5 replies before someone mentioned the need for a flat field lens ? WOW

It took 5 replies before someone mentioned the need for a flat field lens ? WOW

Hi,

Why would that be important when the DOF (f/6.3 gives 8.4 - 13.2 inches DOF for large format output, more for smaller output sizes or larger viewing distances) covers the flat subject's focus requirements?

I'm not saying field-flatness is totally unimportant (BTW the camera used and other lens characteristics are also relevant), but I wonder why you are suggesting that it is so important.

Yes, after four replies I mentioned the Nikon 60mm AFS G micro lens. Regarding cost/performance ratio, there is not a better lens to be found. I loved using a 72mm Digitar on a pancake cam and mfdb, but that was an entirely different game.

We are using a 60mm macro on a D800e for repro alongside our Phase One DF with 120mm Macro and 40 megapixel back. Scarily close results however that is with proper repro lighting and custom ICC profiles, YMMV.